A lot of people are asking in Global Chat how difficult certain NPCs are to defeat. As a rough guide here are some figures I will call, for want of a better name, the 'Manannan Difficulty Quotient' (MDQ)... Hey I invented it therefore I get to name it after myself! (Please note the name may change at a whim in the future!)

As it is a quotient it is an average figure for all troop types in that faction/species so lower tier troops (e.g. Wild Dogs Pups) will be easier than the MDQ given and higher tier troops (e.g. Wolves Wolfpack Leaders) will be harder than the MDQ stated. The figures are put together from the hours of research I used for the (unpublishable) NPC Guide and Bestiary.

In theory, the lower the MDQ the easier it should be to defeat that particular NPC if you have sufficient troop numbers. Obviously if you attack a 'Legion of ???' with only a dozen troops you will be annihilated! Plan your troop numbers accordingly. Don't say I didn't warn you!

It should also be noted that the rewards for attacking Faction NPCs are normally greater than those of Nature NPCs (explained more in the unpublishable NPC Guide and Bestiary - lets not go there) so given a personal choice of attacking 100 Nature NPC Scaled Chargers troops (3.225 MDQ) or 100 Faction NPC Baynes Irregulars troops (2.6775 MDQ), I would hit the faction for the easier (theoretical) attack and bigger (theoretical) payday of gold and commander experience. This is of course totally dependent on the troops faced.

REMEMBER theses figures are a guide only and in no way guarantee success in any attack. That is down to the troop numbers and tactics youdecide to use!

Faction MDQ

Crimson Dawn 2.2875

Treggar's Crows 2.775

Brotherhood of Kerala 2.775

Marauding Skullsplitters 2.775

Baynes Irregulars 2.6775

Nature MDQ

Alligators 2.350

Anacondas 2.425

Arctic Wolves 2.275

Baboons 1.875

Black Bears 2.000

Black Panthers 3.100

Brown Bears 2.150

Cobras 2.450

Coral Snakes 2.225

Cyclopes 4.000

Elephants 12.750

Fire Salamanders 3.000

Gharials 2.200

Giant Beetles 1.425

Giant Rats 1.200

Giant Scorpions 3.025

Giant Scuttlers 3.250

Giant Snakes 3.100

Giant Spiders 2.700

Golden Monkeys 1.300

Ice Salamanders 2.575

Jaguars 2.200

Leopards 2.575

Lions 2.825

Mammoths 18.100

Massive Scarabs 2.050

Poisonous Crawlers 2.875

Polar Bears 2.550

Pumas 2.425

Rhinoceros 7.275

Roaming Trolls 3.300

Salamanders 2.825

Saurians 19.250

Scaled Chargers 3.225

Scritchers 2.525

Simien Wolves 2.075

Snow Leopards 2.250

Tigers 3.300

White Tigers 3.575

Wild Dogs 0.700

Wolves 1.540

I have not listed the Elemental NPCs as they have been removed from the game and no longer lay waiting in ambush for you in dead cities. Obviously they still exist in the game in players armies who were fortunate enough to bind them in the third tournament, but as I'm not about to encourage new players to attack the experience/veteran players who have them for their own safety, therefore they are omitted.

This is still very much a work in progress (and has been for several months) so I will be back in to edit it in the future with more accurate numbers and, for the ever faithful horde of Illyriad number crunchers, an explanation of the maths used for the figures. The reason I am publishing it half complete is people who have used it already have said they find the 'ball park' figures as they are useful as a guide to decide.

Edited by GM Luna - 28 Feb 2012 at 18:51

Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either!

"Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude

Because these figures are meant to be 'hand-wavy remarks based on sightings' rather than counts, I expect there's some randomization before the Label is assigned.

What follows [long post!] is my own reading of how much effort is worthwhile, and is by no means belittling the effort that Manannan and others have put into this.

I've taken a brief look at the problem of assessing one's own chances of defeating creatures (and therefore losses), but found the variables to be too far-scattered to make accuracy practical. Each missing variable (or guess), e.g. terrain, unit types, and so on, introduce significant error to an assessment.

In a way, this is good, because if we're accepting the role-playing nature of the game, then we shouldn't be certain of outcomes, and a hand-wavy observation should be enough to help a player gauge whether their capability is in the same order of magnitude as that of the NPC. Scouting gets more precise figures, which would answer the question of "what are my losses likely to be?"

Players should be attacking only those NPC squares where the outcome is clearly in the player's favour, to minimize losses - we don't want to be burning through troops just to give commanders experience. Given this requirement, accuracy of assessment becomes less important (you're looking for at least 5:1 advantage before attacking).

If we're looking for a discussion point, my question would be this: Could we get by with in-game information only?

By providing 'Labels' and scouting reports, the Illy developers have given us a standard way of assessing capability. Is that enough, or is the need for a more precise estimator just an indication that people want to reduce their safety margins using variables that are not usually available to a player?

I see this proposed enhancement (if adopted) firstly as a justification that extra information could validly be gained through experience; we merely make the game a bit more fun by giving the option of automation using a new unit. It reinforces the idea that all players are created equal, and advanced analysis is not just for the mathematically-minded real-world players.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum